Best Of

@ProofCollection said:
Exciting only if they offer some with Privies, but set a higher mintage limit than they will actually produce in order to infuriate @NJCoin.

Not sure this is exciting at all, no matter what they do. They seem to be following the path of the Royal Canadian Mint, looking for any excuse to commemorate anything.

Unlike the FH product, does anyone actually think anyone is going to get excited about a solid gold tribute to a coin few cared about in the first place, that was only introduced 25 years ago? Maybe at spot +5-10%, if the mintage was low enough, but no way at the premium they are sure to charge.

They can announce whatever they want in terms of mintage here. I very seriously doubt it will sell out, no matter how few they produce. Just like every gold commemorative, or the proof and burnished AGEs.

I think as others have said, technically it is all 64+. My problem with the coin is 2-fold - spots and roller marks(?) on the cheek. Spots just detract and I can’t look at a coin with spots in high visual areas. Apparently CAC does not mind detracting spots and definitely neither do the TPG’s. Maybe they downgrade the coin for them? But I have seen untold dozens of Indian Cents in MS65 (and 100s in lower grades) with ugly spots in high visual areas. I avoid them as I would the coin in the OP here.

Problem with coins like these is that when you image them, the spots become even more apparent. Maybe in hand they are not so bad, but we are in the internet age and we mostly look at our coins in images on a screen. So………..

I will take the one in post above every day and probably pay more for it than the coin in the OP.

Best, DM

@ProofCollection said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
Smart move for the current administration to stop producing the cent.

The smart part is certainly to stop making them until the existing inventory gets low. Then they can make them again.

they cost more to make than they're worth, and most people wouldn't even stop to pick one up off the ground. It's absurd they weren't cancelled sooner.

@Catbert said:
Being among the ignorant on this topic, I appreciate the debate but did not enjoy the rudeness of @You . One can argue without being personal.

100% agreed. Although being confrontational and unpleasant seems to be his modus operandi.

Just another obviously very bright and even more obviously very unpleasant person in numismatics.

@mrcommem said:
Its about time someone has the guts to stop cent production. Now it's time to take the cuts a bit further and stop making paper five and one dollar bills and start making $2 and $5 coins.

It's called FOLDING Money for a reason... No one wants a pocket full of change if they can have folding money.

The obverse is “double struck” technically, but it is a different mechanic and there is a big difference in value. Many similar coins in holders are not marked double struck as @jacrispies shows.

Good thought. Technically, since it is unique (unlike a repeated variety), it could be categorized as a mint error. I would make the case that it shouldn't be in a mint error holder for consistency sake. Imagine all the lincoln cents that exhibit machine doubling in PCGS mint error holders...